Connect with us

Reviews

Review: ‘Saint Maud’ A Sinner’s Ecstasy

Published

on

Rose Glass’s directorial feature debut Saint Maud (2019) is a clever arthouse horror that deals with faith, death, and life’s purpose. The film shows us twisted realities and fantasies through the pious Maud, a mousy caretaker with a mysterious past, keeping us on the edge of our seats until the final, shocking shot. Complete with disorienting camera angles, slow yet enticing plot reveals, and intense interiority, Saint Maud is overall a wonderful trip into faith and psyche.

According to an interview with Vulture, Glass sees a direct relationship between Maud’s faith and psychosis. Such a relationship obviously spurred some harsh criticism, but the director, coming from a Catholic background herself, sees the danger in conflating the two. They are separate experiences, and while a person may descend from one into the other, “There’s always a long, complicated series of events” that leads from religion to “terrible things,” says Glass. Saint Maud takes us through that series of events.

For much of the film, Maud takes care of Amanda, a formerly illustrious dancer played by Jennifer Ehle. Maud, as we know, is fervently religious, but Amanda is an atheist. Right away, this causes friction. Maud is not content with her own observance; no, she must convert the nonbeliever as well. She soon sets out to save the sinner’s soul and consequently oversteps all rational boundaries. Amanda feigns interest at first, even gifting her caretaker a book about the painter and artist William Blake with a note saying, “My saviour.” But who is the savior? Is it Maud, the observant Christian, or Blake, who rejected all organized religion? However, as all things must end, the relationship turns sour, and Amanda reveals her true disbelief.

Depicting mental illness is, clearly and rightfully, tricky. We don’t want to villainize those who struggle, but we shouldn’t put them on the pedestal of more-than-human either. To make the situation more complex, we can add religion. Saint Maud walks the shaky line of showcasing a character with both a strong sense of faith and strong delusions. Importantly, Glass states, “It’s a lazy and quite dangerous way of thinking, to dismiss people who do terrible things as just inherently bad or mad people.” As such, there is nuance in Maud. Her faith doesn’t stem from mental illness, and her mental illness doesn’t come from her faith. They are disparate entities that happen to collide. It is intimated that Maud turned to religion when she was suffering, alone, and desperate. Just as it happens for many people, religion saved her, giving her hope and a reason to go on. What worked for her, Maud thinks, must work for others too, right? And what better way to honor G-d than to show more people the light? Of course, what Maud doesn’t consider is that not everyone wants redemption, let alone believes in it. Where do we go from there?

One of the most chilling lines is from Maud’s head, when she is alone, thinking of the trials she has undergone for her deity. The voiceover says, “If this is how you treat your most loyal subjects, I shudder to think of how you treat those who shun you.” This shows that Maud is religious not due to the promise of love, but because of the threat of punishment. She is willing to physically harm herself quite severely if those pains will grant her G-d’s favor. It is a selfish view, not actually concerned with the spiritual well-being of others. This poses the question of how much faith is based in self-preservation and how much is truly wholehearted love.

Advertisement

Saint Maud raises complex questions about the nature of religion without completely discounting the valid experiences of believers. I understand how some critics interpret the film, particularly the ending, as disparaging to faith, but I don’t agree with them. Blind faith, in my opinion, is not true. If we don’t question what we follow, if we don’t assess the rules for ourselves, then how do we know we are following the righteous path? Maud can be seen as a zealot, unwavering in her belief and intolerant of any and all dissenters. I can write a whole treatise on intolerance, but it’s been done before and it’s not why I’m writing this review. I’m writing to encourage you to watch a movie that will, hopefully, spur some new thoughts while providing a thrill.

Amanda Nevada DeMel is a born-and-raised New Yorker, though she currently lives in New Jersey. Her favorite genre is horror, thanks to careful cultivation from her father. She especially appreciates media that can simultaneously scare her and make her cry. Amanda also loves reptiles, musicals, and breakfast foods.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

‘Shadow of God’ Review: A Bold Indie Horror That Falls Short

Published

on

Whether they land or not, it’s hard not to appreciate how impressive it is that Shudder gives a platform to myriad independent films. While Screambox struggles to finish the race, Shudder is doing a victory lap. Even the greats trip up occasionally. Shadow of God is a film I heard minor rumblings about across the interwebs, and as someone who isn’t into exorcism-like films, it still piqued my interest enough to seek it out. Then I watched it.

Shadow of God: A Promising Premise Falls Flat

Shadow of God follows alcoholic exorcist Mason Harper (Mark O’Brien) as he travels back to his hometown following a death during an exorcism. Mason meets up with his ex-beau, Tanis Green (Jacqueline Byers), who gives him a place to stay while he’s back. The semi-happy reunion between Mason and Tanis is cut short when the dregs of Mason’s deceased father’s cult learn of his arrival. Everyone’s faith will be tested as something more sinister than anyone could imagine rears its ugly head.

It feels like there was a disconnect between writer Tim Cairo and director Michael Peterson, as Shadow of the God feels nothing more than scattered parts of better films clumped together into a heaping mess of something. While full of awful dialogue, Cairo’s script tells a compelling and somewhat unique take on the religious horror subgenre. The bones of a better film exist deep within the script. A rewrite (or three) could have helped to trim the fat and identify the elements of the story that truly work. On the other hand, Michael Peterson seems to have little to no control over whatever he was doing here.

Digital Effects Ruin Emotional Depth

The real issue with the film is the unfortunate digital effects slapped on before the final cut. Any semblance of an okay film quickly flew out the window with the slapdash effects. Nothing takes you out of a well-crafted emotional moment like a giant, badly composited white light shooting out of someone’s forehead. I was so checked out by the end that my final note written about the film simply says, “barn effects BAD.” To be completely honest, I don’t even know what I meant by that.

Not a singular solid performance graces the screen during this hour and 27-minute series of images. I get that independent films face difficult and unique challenges that larger budget films don’t. But the performances feel as if the cast were given the script seconds before the scenes were shot. Mark O’Brien was a huge sell for me with this film, as I adored him in Ready or Not, and it feels like [maybe] his agent dropped the ball on this one.

Advertisement

The Potential Buried in Shadow of God

Shadow of God had the trappings of a film that could stand out from the exorcism slop that floods Tubi’s recommended feed, but ultimately failed to do anything of note. As I said, Shudder takes chances on films, and that’s commendable. There’s a need for streamers like Shudder to give a voice to filmmakers who are trying to change the game. I can see what Tim Cairo was going for here, and I think a different director could have taken this film to the next level. Shadow of the God is, sadly, a huge swing and a miss for me.
Continue Reading

Reviews

‘Jurassic World: Rebirth’ Review: Show Me Your Teeth

Published

on

It has been just three years since Jurassic World: Dominion put the latest trilogy in the franchise on ice with the bite force of a smurf, but like any money-maker in Hollywood, no IP stays extinct for long. Universal decided to revisit the franchise’s roots, heading back to the lab to poke and prod at its barely fossilized remains in an attempt to mix up its DNA enough to warrant a reboot. Jurassic World: Rebirth promised a thrilling return to form – a journey into dino-infested waters that put the terror back in Tyrannosaur. With horror-adjacent auteur Gareth Edwards (known for Monsters and Godzilla) directing and writer David Koepp (who adapted Jurassic Park and The Lost World), returning after a nearly thirty-year absence, expectations were colossal.

What they delivered is a glossy, crowd-pleasing theme park ride into nostalgia that never fully commits to genuine horror or the deeper scientific soul of the 1993 original. It’s enjoyable for fans who love every iteration unconditionally, but it is sure to frustrate those with a more critical eye who expected something closer to a cold-blooded classic.

Jurassic World: Rebirth – A New Chapter or Nostalgic Retread?

For those needing a refresher on the events leading up to Rebirth, you can snag yourself an honorary degree in paleontology with our handy Jurassic Horror 101. After closing out the first reboot trilogy with a whimper, Universal needed to steer the narrative away from pseudo-science and half-baked existentialism toward a more visceral experience; nothing will compare to Spielberg’s masterpiece, sweetie!

The elements for success are all here: Edwards has a strong resume in titanic horror, Koepp is the man behind the original film adaptation, and the fresh faces of Scarlett Johansson, Jonathan Bailey, and Mahershala Ali bring star power to the tropics. Yet, whether due to studio interference or simply buckling under nine tons of pressure, they still haven’t figured out how to catch lightning in a bottle twice.

Dinosaurs, Big Pharma, and a Tropical Mission

Set five years after dinosaurs were left to coexist with humans, we learn that the prehistoric beasts are once again facing extinction, both physically and metaphorically. Unsustainable living conditions within Earth’s rapidly changing ecosystems are eliminating them faster than an ice age, and – perhaps in a nod to our apathy in a digital world – the humans around them largely do not give a damn. As dino merch turns to ash and people avoid the roaming beasts like an invasive flash mob, pharmaceutical company ParkerGenix recruits mercenaries Zora Bennett (Johansson) and Duncan Kincaid (Ali), along with soon-to-be-unemployed paleontologist Dr. Henry Loomis (Bailey), for an adventure their wallets can’t resist.

Advertisement

It seems that dinosaurs are still thriving on small islands surrounding the equator, and ParkerGenix has discovered within these surviving creatures a medical miracle that may provide a cure for heart disease. However, this being a Jurassic movie, our beautiful trio is tasked with retrieving this biomaterial from an island overrun by failed genetic experiments abandoned by the infamous company that started it all – InGen.

Rebirth’s script does touch upon the ethical dilemmas of serving Big Pharma for a seven-figure payout. Still, these moral quandaries are explored no more deeply than a child kicking at sand on the beach, hoping to uncover something shiny underneath the silt. Thematically, the franchise has painted itself into a corner since 1993. The existential wonder, quiet pathos, and scientific stakes have since been mined dry, which makes the shift toward more human-scale horror a welcome pivot. Two reboots in, we may never see a film that so effortlessly balances terror and philosophy as the original did. So, while I could continue to rip the script to shreds, why bother? Instead, let’s get to why you’re really here and tear into the horror of it all.

Does Jurassic World: Rebirth Deliver on Horror?

As is common with blockbuster films, Rebirth finds itself at odds with its behind-the-scenes talent and the studio executives at Universal. They clearly chose Edwards for his experience with films of kaiju proportions, and Koepp’s portfolio includes its fair share of bangers, including 2025’s critically acclaimed Black Bag. The marketing heavily features the newly hatched D-Rex, a “Xenorancor rex” level monstrosity that by all accounts should be the scariest thing this franchise has ever seen. However, the cold open, which includes a Final Destination-like mishap that allows the D-Rex some bloodlust, is all too brief. And that is the film’s biggest flaw: They have to let it linger, and they don’t.

A certain sense of style and cinematic flair that horror’s best know how to use is simply missing. Is this a creative misstep, or is the studio afraid to alienate families? The hallmark sequence that strands our heroes — a franchise staple — lacks the dread felt in the original’s historic T-Rex attack or even the epic trailer cliff dive from The Lost World. Since the human characters in these movies survive far more often than they should, they could at least leave us a bit shaken after such a spectacle. That said, the film does include a tense river raft sequence from Michael Crichton’s novel that fans have been begging for since the 90s, and it is undoubtedly the movie’s highlight.

CGI vs. Practical Effects in Jurassic World: Rebirth

I could overlook the lack of scares, or at least choose to politely ignore them, if they had gone back to basics and incorporated quality practical effects. Most are aware that OG’s lasting reverence is at least partly due to its extensive use of lifelike, tangible dinosaur prosthetics and robotics. In 2025, a solid combination of quality CGI and practical magic would go a long way. Backed by Edwards’ love of lighting a dramatic silhouette, the D-Rex does have some ominous and visually impressive moments as we catch glimpses of her amidst fire and fog. Then you see mother monster full frontal without the filters, and it feels like catching sight of a sweaty drag queen after a summer brunch performance.

Advertisement

The editing does the film’s attempts at horror no favors either, exhibiting strange spatial logic during tense beats where dinosaurs seem to vanish between cuts and human characters appear to ignore the massive beasts that were chasing them moments earlier.

A Love Letter to Jurassic Fans

As mentioned, fans of the franchise do have a lot to love here, despite Rebirth flopping in the horror department. Instead of the over-the-top fan service found in Dominion, we are given plenty of self-referential nods and visual echoes, from mirror messages to rescue flares and raptors in the kitchen. The excellent score by Alexandre Desplat likewise resurrects a familiar tune that accompanies a sequence featuring mutated Brachiosauruses that look ripped from Annihilation, which almost brought a tear to the eye of this longtime fan. What the movie lacks in scares, it makes up for in charm, and moments like these, along with a central trio of likeable characters, are enough to keep the formulaic plot moving along.

It’s no surprise that Wicked’s Jonathan Bailey, as the eager and inexperienced Dr. Loomis, is as charming as ever. The flitters of interaction between him and Johansson’s gruffy mercenary, Zora, are endearing, and Mahershala Ali’s characterization of Kincaid rounds out the trio with enough wit to establish them as the reboot’s next generation. A paper-thin backstory helps us understand why these would-be heroes are risking their lives for the better part of two hours, leaving room for improvement in potential sequels.

There’s also a forgettable family with the personality of wet rags who get caught up in the action, serving more as catalysts for set pieces than as developed characters. Still, their scenes provide some comedic relief through Gen Z’s himbo boyfriend, Xavier (David Iacono), and a cute baby dinosaur named Dolores (could a Labubu crossover be on the way?).

Is Jurassic World: Rebirth Worth Watching?

Overall, Jurassic World: Rebirth is more entertaining than innovative. It won’t convert any skeptics into dinosaur enthusiasts, but true fans can find plenty to enjoy in this sweaty jungle romp. It’s predictable and lacks the horror elements that readers of Horror Press crave, but I had a good time despite it all. The franchise still has teeth, albeit buried deep within its gums. Hopefully, Universal will allow some creatives the freedom to yank them out in bloody glory for the next one.

Advertisement

Jurassic World: Rebirth is now in theaters!

Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement